James Patterson will publish 38 e-books in 2016

James Patterson has proclaimed that he is going to release over 38 e-books in 2016. His publisher Hachette is scheduled to published twenty-three BookShots in 2016, plus fifteen other Patterson titles.

Have you heard of Patterson’s new project BookShots? Each volume runs twenty-five to thirty thousand words, or a hundred and twenty-five to a hundred and fifty pages. Each title will cost only a few dollars and will feature characters from his most popular franchises.

The first BookShots—published this week, precisely a year after Patterson presented the concept—is “Cross Kill.” An installment of Patterson’s Alex Cross series, it is one of the few productions to flow from his solitary pen.

These aren’t novellas, Patterson clarified, nor are they just short, regularly paced novels. Rather, he said, reading a Bookshot is like “reading a hit movie”—fast-paced, economical, with no meandering. So far Patterson plans for Bookshots to publish thriller, romance, and non-fiction.

What is very interesting about the future of BookShots is that Patterson has a hundred and seventeen fresh manuscripts in his home office all ready to go.

Michael Kozlowski is the Editor in Chief of Good e-Reader. He has been writing about audiobooks and e-readers for the past ten years. His articles have been picked up by major and local news sources and websites such as the CBC, CNET, Engadget, Huffington Post and the New York Times.

This series will be a huge success just like everything else Patterson puts out, because he knows what *his* readers want.

Clearly you are not his target audience. Plenty of other writers will no doubt be able to offer you the subjective “quality” you are looking for.

There are lots of movies to watch as an alternative to any book, yet clearly millions of readers are happy enough with the quality of James Patterson titles to willingly forgo some film-watching time to read whatever is put out under his brand.

These will be no different.

Charles Smyth

Regardless of your robust defense of the indefensible, I’m pretty sure that I’ll be proved correct.